Religious liberty and refusing homosexual couples in certain circumstances

[_Abyssinia]

What can be done to protect religious liberty in the face of numerous cases of businesses and organisations being sued, boycotted or contracts ended because they will not create a cake for a homosexual ‘marriage’ or photograph a homosexual wedding or an adoption agency not wanting to place children with homosexual couples etc.

Bakers Weigh In On Wedding Cake Controversy

N.M. Supreme Court: Photographers Can’t Refuse Gay Weddings

Catholic Charities in Boston Archdiocese to end adoption services

March 10, 2006 - Catholic Charities of Boston To Discontinue Adoption Services

‘Evangelical Child and Family Agency in Wheaton confirmed that the state did not renew its foster care contract’: articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-11-16/news/ct-met-evangelical-foster-care-gone-20111116_1_ken-withrow-faith-agency-catholic-charities-agencies

B&B owner says he won’t host gay weddings

Gay couple sues Yeshiva U. for housing

Gresham bakery that refused to bake same-sex wedding cake closes shop

No right to refuse gay couple’s wedding cake

Lawsuit against Arlene’s flowers allowed to go on

Gay couple, Liberty Ridge Farm go before state Human Rights panel

Wedding venue turns away same-sex couple

Couple Sues a Vermont Inn for Rejecting Gay Wedding

Local cake baker’s gay marriage cake denial hits national news

Gay couple told to take their wedding plans elsewhere Article claims it was because they were ‘gay’ but they want their wedding at the venue so it may have to do with the wedding part.

Denying somebody a service or product because a person is homosexual is wrong but there are certain circumstances to do with adoption, weddings etc. that the legal right not to refuse, offends religious liberty.

Attorney Jorden Lorence said on the Kelly File:

there is a difference between turning people down somebody because of who they are, and Elaine photography would photograph people of same sex orientation in other circumstances, it’s the event they are going to communicate.

Similarly with wedding cakes, and wedding venues or anything to do with weddings really, you are communicating a message, and for people opposed to homosexual ‘marriage’ or civil unions, they do not want to be involved in the communication of messages to do with those ceremonies.

 

[rossum]

It is good to see you supporting religious liberty for everyone. We can all welcome a partial implementation of Sharia law in our cities. Moslem taxi drivers will be able to refuse to carry single women not accompanied by a male relative or who are not wearing a hijab.

rossum

 

[Jon_S_1]

I am opposed to homosexual “marriage”

But, I in know way can understand how you can refuse to serve someone over it.

Does the baker of the cakes refuse to make wedding cakes for Catholics marrying outside the church?

Does the wedding photographer refuse to photograph weddings of a cohabitating couple?

Should people fill out a questionnaire prior to buying a cake.

There is no approval or participation in evil by making a cake.

There is no participation in evil by taking photographs of a gay wedding. (As can be proven by photos being taken for news or documentary purposes right?)

So this is a fight that will not be won, it does nothing but equate people to racists and distracts from the real education on why marriage should just be between a man and woman.

 

[losh14]

Bit of a difference here:

It is good to see you supporting religious liberty for everyone. We can all welcome a partial implementation of Sharia law in our cities.

The OP is arguing for a personal right to not do something, not about the implementation of a law that restricts personal freedoms. She’s not asking for every business to close on Sundays, but only that she may close her own business on Sunday. The key, though, is to be consistent. Are you utterly refusing to serve gays (no birthday cakes for the gay couple), or are you refusing to make a cake that causes you to participate in something you deem immoral? That’s a question that deserves both scrutiny and consideration.

Moslem taxi drivers will be able to refuse to carry single women not accompanied by a male relative or who are not wearing a hijab.

This happens all the time. Blacks in New York, St. Louis, Chicago, have a hard time getting a cab, even from other black drivers. It’s not fair, but do you have a fundamental right to get into THIS cab, one that is enforceable by the weight of the law? Must every action of every public service provider be subject to the scrutiny of the Courts?

 

[losh14]

I concur.

I am opposed to homosexual “marriage”

Note that in the US the legal questions surround tax and benefits treatment of the couple - it has not yet been brought that a couple has a fundamental right for a church wedding.

But, I in know way can understand how you can refuse to serve someone over it.

I think we need to make a careful distinction between the objective refusal and the subjective refusal. Is there any point at which a service becomes a participation, such that compelling involvement would violate conscience? The gravity of that larger question alone merits a serious discussion of the particulars.

Refusing to bake a wedding cake seems silly - and my own personal rule (am I an essential participant in evil, such that it would not take place without me or have a harder time occurring without me) wouldn’t make me not want to bake the cake. I am not going to dismiss, however, one’s right not to associate with a behavior they consider intrinsically evil.

As you’ve said:

There is no approval or participation in evil by making a cake.

One is not approving of a marriage by baking a cake. If the couple were to come to my Church (which I’d like them to do) and stand up and say “You Catholics should embrace gay marriage! Your baker here, JT, he made us a wedding cake! He approves of gay marriage! He selectively picks what he believes and rejects the foolish nonsense of the Magisterium!” I’d be entirely within my rights to say “No, I just baked you a flippin’ cake. Sit down, you interrupted the second reading.”

I do, however, see an exception to:

There is no approval or participation in evil by making a cake.

And yes, I had to search for this. This is a thing - soul cakes for the wiccan sabbat of Samhain:
paganwiccan.about.com/od/samhaincooking/ht/Soul_cake.htm

Would you, as a Christian, be comfortable making something that is directly used in a pagan Sabbat, if you thought it were required for the ceremony to be held? Ie, if, without the cakes, the Sabbat ceremony could not occur? I’m not quite that sensitive (one of my best friends is actually a pagan priest) but I wouldn’t want to compel someone who would be uncomfortable with it to violate deeply-held beliefs (religious, or otherwise) just to make a flippin’ cake.

Take a more grave case - a pharmacist who personally believes (for religious reasons or not) that assisting in a suicide is tantamount to murder. In Oregon, physician-assisted suicide is legal (remember this lovely story about a woman whose chemo was denied because the suicide pill was cheaper:
abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492). Does that mean that every physician must agree to help end a patient’s life, regardless of the physician’s own ethics?

Does the baker of the cakes refuse to make wedding cakes for Catholics marrying outside the church?

In the eyes of the law, not necessarily, because religion is a protected class. That’s if they marry outside the Church for religious reasons (ie, dispensation refused because the Catholic is marrying a Muslim). But may the baker legally refuse to bake a cake for a cohabitating couple, or a spouse whose second marriage follows a non-annulled first marriage? Yes, because these are not protected classes.

Does the wedding photographer refuse to photograph weddings of a cohabitating couple?

The cohabitating couple is not a protected class. Legally, the photographer can get away with it. I don’t know if their business would survive the scorn and derision, though.

Should people fill out a questionnaire prior to buying a cake.

I think a simple conversation would be sufficient. We can be civil to one another - “I’m sorry you don’t want to help us celebrate in our day. You do realize this means you won’t be asked to help celebrate any other occasion. Good day.”

 

[losh14]

So this is a fight that will not be won, it does nothing but equate people to racists and distracts from the real education on why marriage should just be between a man and woman.

It’s an emotionally-charged, very polemic fight. It does cast everyone who refuses a service as a bully … nevermind that in the case of the florist in Washington state (I think the OP posted a link), the ACLU and State of Washington are coming down with the full weight of law and thousands of dollars in damages upon a 70-something woman in a small town.

But it does make the case for marriage as truly only being between man and woman a more difficult one. I think, and my analysis isn’t likely that good, that a nationwide rule of “any two consenting adults may marry” will be imputed. The campaign for its acceptance will talk about equality, love, and fundamental civil rights. The courtroom will focus on tax treatment, hospital visits, and employer benefits. And, hopefully, the churches will be told “You don’t have to conduct gay weddings. But you won’t be punished by us for conducting them, either.”

What will be lost in that debate:

• The areas of unequal treatment themselves need a fix. If someone asks for their cohabitating partner to visit in the hospital, and the hospital has a rule about only family, is that a rule that itself needs to be adjusted? Do we need to fundamentally rewrite marriage laws to remedy that?
• Tax treatment for cohabitating families is still unequal. I’m not fond of a dating couple shacking up to get benefits, but I do think that the live-in mother of a boyfriend’s children deserves survivorship benefits. These benefits were created to help care for those who cannot care for themselves. If we can argue for married gay couples who don’t have children at home to receive death benefits (blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/10/kelly_glossip_missouri_supreme_court_denies_same_sex_befits.php) we can certainly support the same for unmarried families who have children.
• That individuals should not be compelled under weight of law to do something that violates their consciences. We have a responsibility to be civil to one another; litigiousness replaces that and I fear many deleterious effects. Is it worth supplanting the responsibility of personal freedom with legal mandate? In some situations - denial of housing to blacks, denial of jobs to transgender persons - yes, the law should step in. Is it worth it for a cake?

 

[MarcoPolo]

this is a fight that will not be won, it does nothing but equate people to racists

Anyone who equates religious liberty with racism probably does not belong in the conversation and may need to be told that. People should not give up religious liberty just because there is reactionary ignorance among the masses or otherwise.

 

[MarcoPolo]

And to the common theme I’ve seen in comboxes and whatnot about how we “can’t win” on this issue - I bring up slavery as an example. For instance, in Sicut Dudum, Pope Eugene IV emphatically condemned slavery of blacks of either gender in the year 1435 and called for their liberation. After being settled a couple hundred years later, the United States didn’t quite get to that point for another long while - not until around 500 years after Pope Eugene’s comments. So regardless of whether or not moral reason prevails in our lifetimes, I don’t think we want to stand before God and say why we collaborated with immorality on the grounds that we didn’t think we could “win” so we may as well not reason or speak the truth.

 

[MarcoPolo]

What can be done to protect religious liberty in the face of numerous cases of businesses and organisations being sued, boycotted or contracts ended because they will not create a cake for a homosexual ‘marriage’ or photograph a homosexual wedding or an adoption agency not wanting to place children with homosexual couples etc.

Thanks for this list, it’s handy. I had a Facebook conversation the other day and I suspect a lot of people aren’t even aware that so many of these businesses have already been told by judicial gunpoint to collaborate with events those business owners find objectionable. These stories don’t get plastered on the night debate shows like other propaganda does.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Anyone who equates religious liberty with racism probably does not belong in the conversation and may need to be told that. People should not give up religious liberty just because there is reactionary ignorance among the masses or otherwise.

Way to take my quote out of context.

What will not be won is the fight to deny business from a public place to anyone. You can’t do that.

A racist cannot claim religious liberty and deny blacks a seat in his restaurant.

A Muslim can’t deny selling goods to infidels.

Etc…

No one is telling a bakery owner he has to have gay sex, or promote gay marriage in his brochures, or applaud when they kiss. All they ask is that he bake a cake for the people that come in and ask for one.

 

[HCTC]

Tradesmen such as bakers, photographers, plumbers, mechanics, and the like can turn down any job at anytime without giving a reason. Giving no reason eliminates any legal consequence (not so restaurants, stores, etc. that serve the general public). I can only surmise that there are some people anxious to share their judgmental disapproval with would-be customers. Personally, I see no reason to encourage that sort of behavior through statue.

 

[marymary1975]

Wait a minute…I thought they said that gays getting married between each other was not going to affect absolutely anyone…

 

[_Abyssinia]

Way to take my quote out of context.

What will not be won is the fight to deny business from a public place to anyone. You can’t do that.

A racist cannot claim religious liberty and deny blacks a seat in his restaurant.

A Muslim can’t deny selling goods to infidels.

Etc…

No one is telling a bakery owner he has to have gay sex, or promote gay marriage in his brochures, or applaud when they kiss. All they ask is that he bake a cake for the people that come in and ask for one.

A person opposed to serving non Whites, mixed race couple, or other ethnic group, I assume has a problem providing services to particular people based on race, whereas somebody who is opposed to participating in homosexual ‘marriage’ ceremonies are opposed to providing services for distinct ceremonies, but may not have an issue with serving homosexuals in other circumstances.

By providing cake for the ceremony, those who make or sell the cake might feel that they had a part to play in the organization and/or celebration of that ceremony and so it is understandable that they did not want to provide a cake.

Ily Shapiro, who supports homosexual ‘marriage’ supported the SB 1062 bill in Arizona. He says:

For that matter, gay photographers and bakers shouldn’t be forced to work religious celebrations, Jews shouldn’t be forced to work Nazi rallies, and environmentalists shouldn’t be forced to work job fairs in logging communities.

cato.org/blog/marriage-equality-religious-liberty-freedom-association

Do you oppose the right of the homosexual photographer, Jewish people, or envionementalists from not being forced to work for causes they do not support? If you do not oppose that right, then would it be hypocritical for you to then oppose the right of bakery shops or wedding venues to not provide products or services for a homosexual wedding?

 

[marymary1975]

Tradesmen such as bakers, photographers, plumbers, mechanics, and the like can turn down any job at anytime without giving a reason. Giving no reason eliminates any legal consequence (not so restaurants, stores, etc. that serve the general public). Personally, I see no reason to encourage that sort of behavior through statue.

I have been repeating exactly that to everyone in this forum and many seem not to get it so thank you for pointing that. I agree completely. I don’t see why it has to be brought into a statute when tradesmen have a right to say no. The problem here again is the shoving things down people’s throat on part of the gay movement.

 

[Jon_S_1]

If a Nazi walked into a Jewish bakery and picked a cake out of the bakery’s catalog I see no reason why he should not be served.

So again I ask,

Where are the bakeries denying to participate in other sinful behaviors?

Are they not concerned about participating in the sin of;

Remarriage without annulment
Catholics marrying outside the church

If they deny those couples too, then I guess they have a very small market.

But if course they are happy to serve those customers because their lives are none of the bakers business and baking a cake and selling it to someone is in no way a support of anything about the person. It is simply selling a cake.

 

[losh14]

Fair question

Where are the bakeries denying to participate in other sinful behaviors?

Are they not concerned about participating in the sin of;

Remarriage without annulment
Catholics marrying outside the church

I have an example. While I was in college a fraternity wanted to have a rush t-shirt made with the slogan on back “No ____ing clowns allowed” and a picture of two clowns engaged in … questionable activity. The local t-shirt printer said no, we won’t do that, it’s offensive. Without remedy, the fraternity changed their design.*

But fraternity members aren’t a protected class. Even if they were, the law should not be used to compel a business owner to engage in something they find morally offensive.

A cake for a wedding I think not many of us would have a problem making ourselves. A cake with a pornographic photo (say for a bachelor party) would find fewer bakers willing to make it. We cannot dismiss the baker’s moral sense of turpitude and compel the action to be performed merely because we do not find the action to be objectionable ourselves.

It is simply selling a cake.

I agree. It reminds me of the whole Chik-fil-et debacle. I miss my childhood, when eating a sandwich was about the least complicated thing you could possibly do.

• The printer ran with a modified t-shirt that removed the words. They kept the picture of the clowns. Apparently they thought the clowns were just wrestling.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Way to take my quote out of context.

What will not be won is the fight to deny business from a public place to anyone. You can’t do that.

A racist cannot claim religious liberty and deny blacks a seat in his restaurant.

A Muslim can’t deny selling goods to infidels.

Etc…

No one is telling a bakery owner he has to have gay sex, or promote gay marriage in his brochures, or applaud when they kiss. All they ask is that he bake a cake for the people that come in and ask for one.

I may have read somewhere that a person opposed to serving non Whites, mixed race couple, or other ethnic group, I assume has a problem providing services to particular people based on race, whereas somebody who is opposed to participating in homosexual ‘marriage’ ceremonies are opposed to providing services for distinct ceremonies, but may not have an issue with serving homosexuals in other circumstances.

By providing cake for the ceremony, those who make and/or sell the cake might feel that they had a part to play in the organization and/or celebration of that ceremony and so it is understandable that they did not want to provide a cake.

Ily Shapiro, who supports homosexual ‘marriage’ supported the SB 1062 bill in Arizona. He says:

For that matter, gay photographers and bakers shouldn’t be forced to work religious celebrations, Jews shouldn’t be forced to work Nazi rallies, and environmentalists shouldn’t be forced to work job fairs in logging communities.

cato.org/blog/marriage-equality-religious-liberty-freedom-association

Do you oppose the right of homosexual photographers, Jewish people, or environmentalists from not being forced to work for causes they do not agree? If you do not oppose that right, then would it be hypocritical for you to then oppose the right of bakery shops or wedding venues to not provide products or services for a homosexual wedding?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Fair question

I have an example. While I was in college a fraternity wanted to have a rush t-shirt made with the slogan on back “No ____ing clowns allowed” and a picture of two clowns engaged in … questionable activity. The local t-shirt printer said no, we won’t do that, it’s offensive. Without remedy, the fraternity changed their design.*

But fraternity members aren’t a protected class. Even if they were, the law should not be used to compel a business owner to engage in something they find morally offensive.

A cake for a wedding I think not many of us would have a problem making ourselves. A cake with a pornographic photo (say for a bachelor party) would find fewer bakers willing to make it. We cannot dismiss the baker’s moral sense of turpitude and compel the action to be performed merely because we do not find the action to be objectionable ourselves.

I agree. It reminds me of the whole Chik-fil-et debacle. I miss my childhood, when eating a sandwich was about the least complicated thing you could possibly do.

• The printer ran with a modified t-shirt that removed the words. They kept the picture of the clowns. Apparently they thought the clowns were just wrestling.

Yes and if the bakery sells cakes and a gay couple comes in and says we want cake A on page 7, there should be no issue. Even writing Congratulations Steve and Steve should be no issue.

If they come in and want a custom rainbow cake with genitalia em blazed on it then of course the baker can refuse.

That’s not what’s happening. Instead the baker says, you can’t order cakes here from my catalog, you can’t order off my website, you aren’t welcome here.

 

[losh14]

Jon S, I think you and I agree that opposition to the event is one thing, opposition to the class of persons is another.

That’s not what’s happening. Instead the baker says, you can’t order cakes here from my catalog, you can’t order off my website, you aren’t welcome here.

Depends on the situation.
In the case of Arlene’s Flowers, a florist refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding. She had provided flowers to the men for years, apparently (since she’d sold anniversary flowers and such) knowing they were gay.

I find this note interesting, and tieing in nicely with some of the sentiments on this thread:
The business owner, “Stutzman would have been willing to sell them flowers for the wedding, but not to design and create the floral arrangements and set them up at the wedding, which would have promoted or made her a participant in an event that offends her conscience, [her attorney] Bristol said.”

Source: tri-cityherald.com/2013/04/18/2361691/arlenes-flowers-in-richland-sued.html#storylink=cpy

On the face, she didn’t discriminate against them because they were gay, but against an activity that she disagreed with.

But whether one can separate gay marriage from being gay is another story. At the same time, the State cannot successfully argue that she refused service to a gay couple because she had long served them.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon S, I think you and I agree that opposition to the event is one thing, opposition to the class of persons is another.

Depends on the situation.
In the case of Arlene’s Flowers, a florist refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding. She had provided flowers to the men for years, apparently (since she’d sold anniversary flowers and such) knowing they were gay.

I find this note interesting, and tieing in nicely with some of the sentiments on this thread:
The business owner, “Stutzman would have been willing to sell them flowers for the wedding, but not to design and create the floral arrangements and set them up at the wedding, which would have promoted or made her a participant in an event that offends her conscience, [her attorney] Bristol said.”

Source: tri-cityherald.com/2013/04/18/2361691/arlenes-flowers-in-richland-sued.html#storylink=cpy

On the face, she didn’t discriminate against them because they were gay, but against an activity that she disagreed with.

But whether one can separate gay marriage from being gay is another story. At the same time, the State cannot successfully argue that she refused service to a gay couple because she had long served them.

I guess I still don’t see how if someone gives you $500 and asks you to design flower arrangements in these colors, and them show up at this place at 4:00 and tie them to a gazebo and place them on tables, how that is participating in a gay marriage.

If she did it for free or stayed and watched the ceremony or something maybe, but as far as the florist is concerned who cares if the venue is going to be used for gay marriage or a tea or a heterosexual wedding or a Nazi rally.

It’s simply selling flowers